stock_car_racingfandomcom-20200214-history
Template talk:Multiple issues/doc
Better guidance for new users To avoid tagging Redundant issues and Too many issues I would need more information on which parameters to give preference, which ones are more important, and which ones overlap significantly in scope. I spend too much time looking this up and the number of issues is large. As a first step, I have inserted a column into the Isssues supported table, as I find time I'll be adding the information. I also propose to color-code the rows of the table according to *Issues that would warrant speedy deletion *Issues that would warrant a proposal for deletion *Issues that concern contents but would not warrant deletion *Issues concerning style or formatting Thoughts? Steipe (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC) :Why would any issues warrant a reason for speedy (or not) deletion? All issues are about improving the article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) ::Not only. E.g. important will ultimately lead to deletion if not addressed; similarly advert may be a speedy deletion criterion. Therefore editors need to decide whether to propose fixing or removing. Some "severity" scale is helpful, I think. This would avoid tying up resources for material that can't be salvaged. E.g. if I flag important, should I also have to check links and flag orphan or propose copyediting ? Or is it better to assume that there's no point as long as it's not clear whether the article will be kept ... Steipe (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC) :::The original templates of Importance and Grammar have the same colour line on the left. I think the speedy deletion should be not an option. If an editor believes that the article has to be speedy deleted then it has to be marked with the a proper reasoning. There are speedy deletion templates for that. (For example use ). I understand your logic but taking a look at Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance and Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes I don't see an hierarchy. The colors on the left are choosen by the type of the issue. For more check . Articleissues doesn't include "speedy" or "delete" type of templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC) ::::Ah, maybe I was not clear enough - I was not talking about color coding the box of the message, but the rows of the table on the documentation page... Steipe (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC) :::::Yes, I understood that but I still think there are no lines applying to the first coloring (speedy deletion) and probably the second (proposal for deletion). Can you provide a specific example? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC) ;Examples: *Issues that could warrant speedy deletion if not addressed, since they compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia: **''hoax, disputed'' - as per G3, **''blpdispute'' - as per G10, **''advert, spam'' - as per G11, **''notability'' - as per A7 *Issues that could warrant a PROD or AfD if not addressed since they contravene core policies. **''autobiography, COI, likeresume, newsrelease, peacok'' - as per WP:COI, **''crystal, POV, fansite, in-universe, howto, laundry, plot, travelguide, unencyclopedic'' - as per WP:NOT **''unrefererenced, unreferencedBLP, self-published'' - as per WP:N and WP:V *Issues that concern contents but would not warrant deletion - often the less serious siblings of the above **''unbalanced, review, importance, contradict, weasel'' **''onesource'' **''expand, incomplete'' *Issues concerning style or formatting - they should be improved but would not lead to deletion since the value of the article is not disputed in principle. **''confusing, story, citations missing, grammar, restructure'' ... (and the rest) :Why do I think this triage may be valuable? There is a hierarchy to problem severity: If there are red issues, I'd want to watch the page, see that it gets fixed soon and if not, nominate the article. These are issues I would typically not want to work on myself. Yellow issues should better not even be flagged at the same time; for example you don't want an editor investing heavily to fix unreferenced when the real problem is advert. Steipe (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ::If you decide to do that, I would suggest giving some color (perhaps a very pale blue) to the last item, so that it doesn't "disappear" (blend visually into the previous section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :::Good point. (The scheme would need to be a little more subdued anyway :-) Steipe (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Revised table I have implemented a sortable topic and criticality column which IMO improves the clarity of the documentation a lot. There is also a synopsis for each parameter and some notes on usage. [[User:Steipe/dev|'The draft is located in my user space']] and I would appreciate feedback before I replace the old one. Thanks! Steipe (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Since there were no objections to above, I am now replacing the old table with a revised version. Steipe (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Display order? The display sample doesn't seem to list the messages in the same order they're listed in the edit window? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Just one quick thing Could an admin link the expanded to WP:EXPAND??? Regards, —'Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? •' 10:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)